In the goal of the math problems to get the answers or think for years on a complicated topic? It’s the same Q developers have. Are they paid to type code or create programs?
As a not math person, seems strictly good that AI can solve more problems. If they were important, it can maybe unlock new science. If they had no useful purpose, why did we think about them for years?
> I am not a Luddite. I think that it is fine if human mathematicians decide that we want to use LLMs..
Luddites weren't technophobic. They were protesting against the industrialist drive to slash wages, release low quality goods and destroy their livelihoods in the process. Much like author.
They are remembered as the opposite because the industrialists won and the enshittification happened.
> I believe in chasing fantastic scientific and mathematical progress with the help of LLMs, we risk imperiling our institutions, our professional norms, and human mathematical understanding
I don't think that defending institutions and professional status is a great image for a largely publicly funded academia. Academia should not be about reproducing itself firstmost. This may be a bit less pronounced in mathematical academic work ("which is already useless" as author says and def more honest about it) but broadly academia should care more about progress than its institutional status and professional norms (as in the status in which careering in academia is defined, not honesty, integrity, rigour and other such norms that are already not as greatly upheld anyway in many parts of it as it should).
The "human mathematical understanding" is indeed a valid concern imo.
3 comments of 11
[ 0.21 ms ] story [ 10.1 ms ] threadAs a not math person, seems strictly good that AI can solve more problems. If they were important, it can maybe unlock new science. If they had no useful purpose, why did we think about them for years?
Luddites weren't technophobic. They were protesting against the industrialist drive to slash wages, release low quality goods and destroy their livelihoods in the process. Much like author.
They are remembered as the opposite because the industrialists won and the enshittification happened.
I don't think that defending institutions and professional status is a great image for a largely publicly funded academia. Academia should not be about reproducing itself firstmost. This may be a bit less pronounced in mathematical academic work ("which is already useless" as author says and def more honest about it) but broadly academia should care more about progress than its institutional status and professional norms (as in the status in which careering in academia is defined, not honesty, integrity, rigour and other such norms that are already not as greatly upheld anyway in many parts of it as it should).
The "human mathematical understanding" is indeed a valid concern imo.